Judge dropped from delay case - donated to leftist groups

[Grizlaw]

arent they along the lines of the same darn thing

Yes, they are "along the same lines" (that's why I acknowledged that we're arguing about semantics at this point), but there is an important difference between the two. A conflict of interest is something that arises when there is a significant legal relationship between the judge and a party. It is something that either exists or doesn't exist; there aren't really any gray areas. If a judge has a conflict of interest, he should recuse himself; if he doesn't do so, it reflects poorly on the judge. This is why I have been harping on the use of the term; saying that he was removed because there is a "conflict of interest" paints the situation in a bit more scandalous light than is really the case.

Impartiality is a bit more of a fuzzy concept. A judge can be removed if it can be shown that he cannot act impartially in a case, but whether or not to remove a judge for that reason is a bit more of a judgment call. That's what happened in this case.

Anyway, that's my .02 worth. I'll stop nitpicking...

[Hell's Bells]

arent they along the lines of the same darn thing

Yes, they are "along the same lines" (that's why I acknowledged that we're arguing about semantics at this point), but there is an important difference between the two. A conflict of interest is something that arises when there is a significant legal relationship between the judge and a party. It is something that either exists or doesn't exist; there aren't really any gray areas. If a judge has a conflict of interest, he should recuse himself; if he doesn't do so, it reflects poorly on the judge. This is why I have been harping on the use of the term; saying that he was removed because there is a "conflict of interest" paints the situation in a bit more scandalous light than is really the case.

Impartiality is a bit more of a fuzzy concept. A judge can be removed if it can be shown that he cannot act impartially in a case, but whether or not to remove a judge for that reason is a bit more of a judgment call. That's what happened in this case.

Anyway, that's my .02 worth. I'll stop nitpicking...

hey its alright i am actually enjoying this gl

my new question would be then why would they pull the judge because he cant act imparcially if there isnt even a small "conflict of interest"

[Grizlaw]

my new question would be then why would they pull the judge because he cant act imparcially if there isnt even a small "conflict of interest"

Because conflict of interest and impartiality are simply two separate concepts. A judge has to be able to act impartially in a case and has to be free of conflicts of interest.

Think of it this way: a conflict of interest arises if the judge has an actual stake in the outcome of the case (i.e., because one of the parties is related to the judge, or is a business in which the judge owns a great deal of stock (theoretically blinded trusts should solve this problem, but see the Frist situation for more on that)), or when the judge cannot oversee a case because doing so would compromise his legal obligation to someone else (i.e., because one of the parties is a former client, and he thus knows things about the party that a judge would not be entitled to find out in the normal course of litigation). The key point, though, is that it arises out of a relationship that the judge has with one of the parties (or with a key witness, or with the case in whatever other manner) that gives him a stake in the outcome.

Impartiality is more subjective; to get a judge removed for not being impartial, you have to show that he has a demonstrable bias. It is possible for a judge to be biased against a party without necessarily having the type of relationship that gives rise to a conflict of interest.

[SonomaCat]

With the recent tone of your posts in the political area, is it safe to ask whether you have replaced the (L) on your voter's registration card and replaced it with a (D)?

It's actually still an (R), and my votes on the CA special election absentee ballot strongly reflect that (Arnold better send me a nice Christmas card this year for supporting his pet propositions). You just need to see me tee off on liberal partisan statements that sound too much like party talking points. You just don't see nearly as many of those on this particular site, unfortunately (it'd be nice just for balance, although zero comments of that type from either side would be ideal). If you saw my posts/comments on other venues, though, you'd see that I just hate blindly partisan perspectives from either side.

And as an aside, I'm not sure if I was "being pissy" so much as I was trying to put the comment into perspective via analogy (which rarely works, but I keep doing it). As the rest of the thread has shown, soft-spoken diplomacy often isn't always the most efficient way to get a point across (although it is the way I personally respect the most). I don't care if people disagree with me, as long as what they say shows some signs of consideration of both sides of an argument.

I'd go on, but it appears that Grizlaw has a conflict of interest with something somewhere, so I don't want to get in the middle of that.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

With the recent tone of your posts in the political area, is it safe to ask whether you have replaced the (L) on your voter's registration card and replaced it with a (D)?

It's actually still an (R), and my votes on the CA special election absentee ballot strongly reflect that (Arnold better send me a nice Christmas card this year for supporting his pet propositions). You just need to see me tee off on liberal partisan statements that sound too much like party talking points. You just don't see nearly as many of those on this particular site, unfortunately (it'd be nice just for balance, although zero comments of that type from either side would be ideal). If you saw my posts/comments on other venues, though, you'd see that I just hate blindly partisan perspectives from either side.

And as an aside, I'm not sure if I was "being pissy" so much as I was trying to put the comment into perspective via analogy (which rarely works, but I keep doing it). As the rest of the thread has shown, soft-spoken diplomacy often isn't always the most efficient way to get a point across (although it is the way I personally respect the most). I don't care if people disagree with me, as long as what they say shows some signs of consideration of both sides of an argument.

I'd go on, but it appears that Grizlaw has a conflict of interest with something somewhere, so I don't want to get in the middle of that.

You're right. Often times, "soft spoken diplomacy" is seldom efficient on this medium of communication so I can totally understand where you're coming from. I would say that a couple of years ago, I was of that group you described as "blindly partisan". Now, I'm still partisan but I'd like to think I'm not as blind.

[SonomaCat]

I'm in the same boat. A couple years ago, all things looked at lot more obvoious and simple to to me. As time wears on, everything gets a lot more complicated (and troublesome, personally).

[Grizlaw]

I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, although this definitely has potential to become ridiculous at some point...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_congress

[Hell's Bells]

I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, although this definitely has potential to become ridiculous at some point...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_congress

ill rephrase the article:

the demicrat DA Ronnie Earl has successfully managed to get the republican judge that was presiding over the case to STEP DOWN through a series of motions........................


hey if the judge can be labled as a "R" in a newspaper then i can lable the DA as "D"

[Grizlaw]

ill rephrase the article:

the demicrat DA Ronnie Earl has successfully managed to get the republican judge that was presiding over the case to STEP DOWN through a series of motions........................


hey if the judge can be labled as a "R" in a newspaper then i can lable the DA as "D"

True, although I do vaguely recall someone earlier in this thread writing the following:

if the judge donated to any cause that wanted to go after delay then yes the judge should be banned....and for the record if the judge gave money to a pro-delay group id be saying the same thing. judges should be impartial as possible

Still feel the same way Hells?

--GL

[iaafan]

DeLay should've let the Demo. judge sit. That way when he gets beat he can cry foul. Because now, "when he gets beat" he won't be able to.

Also Hells mentioned something about the Dems be contrary to anything Bush does. Don't look now Hells, but a lot of the Repbs (see BAC above) are starting to do the same thing.

[Hell's Bells]

ill rephrase the article:

the demicrat DA Ronnie Earl has successfully managed to get the republican judge that was presiding over the case to STEP DOWN through a series of motions........................


hey if the judge can be labled as a "R" in a newspaper then i can lable the DA as "D"

True, although I do vaguely recall someone earlier in this thread writing the following:

if the judge donated to any cause that wanted to go after delay then yes the judge should be banned....and for the record if the judge gave money to a pro-delay group id be saying the same thing. judges should be impartial as possible

Still feel the same way Hells?

--GL

yes as a matter of fact i do